How to Reduce Your Crypto Tax Bill by Taking Out a Crypto-Back Loans

Source: iStock/Nuthawut Somsuk
By Alex Lielacher

The crypto lending market has been experiencing an increasing interest in the past 12 to 18 months. More and more HODLers are using their digital asset holding as collateral for fiat currency loans. While the reasons to take out loans are myriad, one of the biggest arguments for taking out a crypto-backed loan is that it can help investors reduce their crypto tax bill.

In this article, you will learn how you can reduce your capital gains tax burden by leveraging crypto lending platforms.

What are crypto-backed loans?

As the name indicates, crypto-backed loans are loans that are backed by collateral in the form of cryptoassets. Borrowers are, therefore, able to receive fiat currency without having to sell their crypto holdings.

Unlike traditional loans, however, no extensive documentation or credit checks are required to borrow. Instead, the crypto collateral is held in smart contracts once a loan is agreed. In the case that the value of the collateral drops below a certain level, the borrower receives a margin call to provide more cryptoassets as collateral.

Benefits of crypto-backed loans

Crypto-backed loans come with a number of benefits over traditional loans, which explains why the crypto lending space has been getting more attention in the past twelve months.

The key benefits of crypto-backed loans are as follows:

  • Loans can be taken out almost instantly
  • Borrowers are not required to undergo credit checks
  • Little to no personal documentation is required to borrow
  • Crypto-backed loans come with lower interest rates than bank loans
  • Blockchain technology provides more transparency and security
  • The value of your collateral could increase and generate a return on investment
  • Access to cash without creating a taxable event

How to take out a crypto-backed cash loan to save on taxes

There are multiple crypto lenders such as BlockFiCelsius NetworkNexoEthLend, and others.

BlockFi, explains in a blog post: “Selling crypto is a taxable event. Exchanging crypto-for-crypto is a taxable event. But borrowing money against your crypto is NOT a taxable event. This makes lenders […] a great way to gain access to USD without having to sell your crypto investments.”

Let’s use the Switzerland-based crypto lending platform Nexo as an example how the process looks like.

To take out a (fiat currency) cash loan, you first need to select the crypto asset (bitcoinetherXRP etc.) that you want to place as collateral. Next, you enter the amount of money (in one of 45 fiat currencies) that you would like to borrow in exchange for your crypto collateral.

The platform will then show you the amount of crypto collateral you will need to place, how much interest you will pay each day and then prompts you to create an account to secure the credit line.

Next, you will need to confirm your registration via a confirmation email, and then, you will be taken to your account dashboard.

Here, you can deposit and manage your collateral, and complete the loan agreement to acquire your first crypto credit line. The fiat currency is then deposited to your bank account.

Arguably the best part of a crypto-backed credit line is that it enables you to get your hands on cash without having to sell cryptoassets, which means no taxable event takes place.

While borrowing cash against cryptocurrency collateral is not a risk-free venture, by all means, it can be another way to save on taxes as a crypto investor.

Join the call to divest from the state and the banking system by switching to cryptocurrency today. Take the pledge to exchange at least $1 per day into your choice of altcoin and #DivestWallStreet


Will North Carolina’s Supreme Court Allow Racism to Remain a Persistent Factor in its Death Penalty?

Image of an empty jury box in a courtroom
AP Photo/Brennan Linsley
By Jeffery Robinson, ACLU Deputy Legal Director and Director of the Trone Center for Justice and Equality

In 2009, North Carolina passed the Racial Justice Act (RJA), which allowed defendants to strike the death penalty from their cases if they could show that racial discrimination was a factor in their prosecution. The law came as a response to a series of exonerations of Black people who were falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit by all-white or nearly all-white juries. The legislature took a bold step to address was what suspected to be deeply troubling evidence of racism infecting the death penalty—but no one knew for sure what evidence uncovered by the RJA would find.

In 2010, people on death row began filing RJA claims. Four had hearings, and the evidence uncovered was indeed stark, troubling, and clearly pointed to the systemic ways that racism infects capital cases in North Carolina. The four petitioners had death sentences reversed and were resentenced to life without parole (LWOP).

But in 2013, the law was repealed by the same new legislature that targeted Black voters with “surgical precision” in gerrymandering, and the four petitioners were all sent back to death row without new trials. Two additional petitioners—who had uncovered evidence through the RJA but not yet had hearings—were also subsequently denied their day in court.

On August 26th  and 27th, we, along with five other legal teams and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., will go before the North Carolina Supreme Court to fight for the rights of the six petitioners to have their evidence recognized and their death sentences overturned. The Attorney General for North Carolina will ask the Court to do one of two things: Sweep clear and obvious evidence of racism under the rug and pretend it does not exist or shold that, in 2019, it is fine to use trials infected with racism as the vehicle to execute Black men.

In its quest to disregard the troubling evidence of racial bias, the State will ask the North Carolina Supreme Court to overturn constitutional law, dating back to the Civil War, protecting the right to have a legally filed defense heard in court, regardless of whether those defenses are later repealed. North Carolina established this legal principle in a case that dismissed prosecution for multiple murders committed during the Civil War, based on a law granting immunity for such acts, even though the law was later repealed. That precedent has stood in North Carolina law for almost 150 years. 

Hypocrisy often produces irony, and that is true here: A legal principle was established to protect confederate soldiers for the massacres of civilian children and men. Now, the North Carolina Supreme Court is being asked to ignore this principle in a case challenging discrimination against Black jurors at the life and death trials of persons of color. We can learn a lot by studying who the law is selectively applied to benefit.


ADD YOUR NAMEAllegations made in the six complaints and evidence produced in the hearings included a prosecutor calling a defendant “a big black bull;” a suggestion during jury selection that a Black defendant should have been lynched; the use of crime scene tape to section off the area behind the defense table, with the defendant’s family forced to sit in the back of the courtroom, while the white family of the victim sat in front behind the prosecutor; derogatory and demeaning interrogation of Black jurors, including questions about whether a juror had trouble reading and whether he had gone “straight through” school, implying he may have repeated grades.

One prosecutor wrote in his notes that a Black juror with a criminal history was a “thug” while a white juror who trafficked in drugs was “a fine guy;” a Black juror was described as a “blk wino” while a white juror with a DUI conviction was a “country boy – ok.” 

There is evidence prosecutors were trained on how to give pre-planned responses to Batson objections regardless of the evidence. At least one of the prosecutors in the RJA cases persistently relied on this training to respond to Batson objections to her decisions about removing Black jurors. One had the audacity to read from a list of excuses and struck a Black juror for age, despite the fact that she had let a white juror with the same birthday remain immediately prior. When the judge noticed and asked her about it, she ran down to the next reasons on her cheat sheet.

The data corroborate all of this anecdotal evidence and prove that racial bias in North Carolina’s death penalty is systematic—not the work of a few isolated bad actors. The state’s own statistical expert conceded that the patterns of exclusion of Black jurors in the cases suggested racial discrimination. A Michigan State University studyconducted in connection with the RJA examined the decisions of prosecutors across the state involving over 7,000 jurors, in 173 capital trials, over twenty years. The study found that—across all time periods and geographic areas—race played an “overwhelming” role in jury selection in the state. A subsequent study, conducted by former prosecutors from Wake Forest Law, found the same patterns. All of this evidence is clear, shameful, and undeniable.

The State has continually argued that all of the evidence of blatant racism in all six cases should be ignored or that it just does not matter. Those positions are especially shameful in light of North Carolina’s legacy of racial terror and lynching. EJI calculated 123 lynchings in North Carolina between 1877 and 1950. This legacy of executions should be a stark reminder of the role race has played in who is executed in North Carolina.      

Sweeping this under a rug won’t work: There is no rug big enough to hide the stench of this evidence. More than a century of North Carolina law says you get your day in court even if the law is repealed; 73 years of lynchings and evidence of overwhleming racial bias in the death penalty say enough is enough. If North Carolinians are to have any faith in their legal system, the Court must intervene and set this right. Our democracy depends on it. 

Join the call to divest from the state and the banking system which protect and subsidize the prison-industrial-complex by switching to cryptocurrency today. Take the pledge to exchange at least $1 per day into your choice of altcoin and #DivestWallStreet

Telnet Is Not A Crime: Unconvincing Prosecution Screenshot Leaked in Ola Bini Case

To Ola Bini, a Political Prisoner Caught Up in the Assange ...
By Danny O’Brien

Since EFF visited Ecuador three weeks ago, the investigation into open source developer Ola Bini has proceeded as we described then: drawn out, with little evidence of wrong-doing, but potentially compromised by acts of political theater outside the bounds of due process and a fair trial.

Last week — shortly after prosecutors successfully extended the investigation for another 30 days and informed Bini that they would also be opening new investigations into his taxes and visa status — Ecuadorean TV and newspapers published leaked imagery and conversations from evidence collected in the trial, together with claims from sources that this imagery proved Bini hacked the systems of Ecuador’s national communications provider, ECN.

The evidence offered was a screenshot, said to be taken from Bini’s mobile phone. The press reported that the phone was unlocked by police after seized security footage revealed Bini’s PIN when he used his phone in his own office elevator.

Telnet Is Not A Crime

Cursory examination of the actual screen capture reveals that both the leaker and the media misunderstand what the new evidence shows. Rather than demonstrating that Bini intruded into the Ecuadorean telephone network’s systems, it shows the trail of someone who paid a visit to a publicly accessible server — and then politely obeyed the servers’ warnings about usage and access.

Here’s the screenshot (with our annotations), taken from the evidence as it was finally submitted to the court.

Picture of a telnet session

Those knowledgeable about Unix-style command line shells and utilities will recognize this as the photograph of a laptop screen, showing a telnet session (telnet is an insecure communication protocol that has largely been abandoned for public-facing technologies).

Command line interactions generally flow down the page chronologically, from top to bottom, including both textual commands typed by the use, and the responses from the programs the user runs. The image shows, in order, someone – (presumably Bini, given that his local computer prompt shows “/home/olabini”) – requesting a connection, via Tor, to an open telnet service run on a remote computer.

Telnet is a text-only communication system, and the local program echoes the remote service’s warning against unauthorised access. The remote service then asks for a username as authorization. The connection is then closed by the remote system with a “timeout” error, because the person connecting has not responded.

It’s the Internet equivalent of seeing an open gate, walking up to it, seeing a “NO TRESPASSING” sign, and moving on.

The last line on the screen capture shows the telnet program exiting, and returning the user to their own computers’ command line prompt.

This is not demonstrative of anything beyond the normal procedures that computer security professionals conduct as part of their work. A user discovers an open telnet service, and connects to it out of curiosity or concern. The remote machine responds with a message by the owner of the device, with a warning not to log on without authorization. The user chooses to respect the warning and not proceed.

It’s the Internet equivalent of seeing an open gate, walking up to it, seeing a “NO TRESPASSING” sign, and moving on.

It’s notable also what was not leaked: the complete context surrounding the screenshot. The picture allegedly came from a series of messages between Ola and his system administrator, Ricardo Arguello, a well-known figure in the Ecuadorian networking and free software communities. The full conversation was omitted, except that that Bini sent this screenshot, to which his Arguello replied “It’s a router. I’ll talk to my contact at CNT.”

If you found a service that was insecurely open to telnet access on the wider Internet, that’s what you might reasonably and responsibly do — message to someone who might be able to inform its owner, with evidence that the system is open to anyone to connect. And under those conditions, Arguello’s response is just what a colleague might say back — that they would get in touch with someone who might be able to take the potentially insecure telnet service offline, or put it behind a firewall.

Certainly, that explanation fits the facts of this screenshot far better than the press reports that claims this is proof that Bini invaded the “entire network” of Ecuador’s national oil company, Petroecuador, and the former National Intelligence Secretariat.

EFF’s conclusions from our Ecuador mission were that — from its very beginnings in a hasty press conference held by the Interior Minister that spoke of Russian hackers and Wikileaks members undermining the Ecuadorean state — political actors, including the prosecution, have recklessly tied their reputations to a case with little or no real evidence. It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that Ola Bini’s prosecution continues to be publicly fought in the Ecuadorean press, with misleading and partial leaks and distractions, instead of in a courtroom, before a judge.

We trust that, when and if this evidence is presented in court, that judge will examine it more skeptically, and with better technical advice, than the prosecution or media has until now.

Join the call to divest from the state and the banking system which protect and subsidize the prison-industrial-complex by switching to cryptocurrency today. Take the pledge to exchange at least $1 per day into your choice of altcoin and #DivestWallStreet

Trump Mulling ‘Uniquely Dystopian’ Proposal to Use AI to Identify Mental Health Issues as Risk Factors for Gun Violence

By Julia Conley

In keeping with his insistence that people with mental illnesses, and not the wide availability of guns, are to blame for the epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings in the U.S., President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a new project aimed at detecting mental health issues to stop shootings before they happen.

As The Washington Post reported Thursday, the Trump administration has worked with Bob Wright, a close friend of Trump’s and his collaborator on the reality show “The Apprentice,” to develop a proposal for a new federal agency that would be called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency (HARPA), within the Health and Human Services Department.

HARPA would be modeled after and led by a top official at the Pentagon’s research office, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which has developed dronesartificial intelligence meant to merge with deadly weapons, and technology to help U.S. soldiers detect safety threats during deployments.

Instead of developing military equipment, HARPA would draw information from people—gathered strictly from people who opt into the program, the administration says—to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act.”

As Sarah Orem, a postdoctoral student who researches disability rights, wrote on social media, HARPA’s technology “deeply resembles” the Pentagon’s, “which scans for ‘possible threats’ to soldiers at war.”

“Except the ‘threat’ here is mentally ill Americans,” Orem said.

HARPA’s goal of using “volunteer data to identify ‘neurobehavioral signs’ of ‘someone headed toward a violent explosive act'” deeply resembles the above technology, which scans for “possible threats” to soldiers at war. Except the “threat” here is mentally ill Americans. (5/

— Sarah Orem (@s_orem) August 22, 2019

Orem called the proposal “nothing less than chilling.”

As many on Twitter are picking up on, Trump’s interest in creating a DARPA-style agency called HARPA tasked with policing potential “neuropsychiatric violence” (a term which needs unpacking) is nothing less than chilling. (1/

— Sarah Orem (@s_orem) August 22, 2019

The Post reported that Wright first proposed the program in June 2017. He approached the administration again last week in the wake of two mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, in which 31 people were killed this month.

Talks about HARPA were reopened as Trump was assuring the NRA that he would not pursue universal background check legislation to prevent mass shootings, and doubling down on previous claims that people with mental health challenges are the primary cause of shootings—suggesting to reporters last week that the U.S. should institutionalize mentally ill people en masse to prevent violence.

Contrary to the president’s claims, studies have shown that mental health issues are not a major risk factor for perpetrating violence.

Trump has reportedly been receptive to the HARPA proposal and the administration is currently considering a potential project within the agency called “Safe Home” (Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes), which would involve a “sensor suite” using AI to identify people who could be prone to violence.

Just as DARPA has partnered with private companies, HARPA would potentially use personal technology devices like Apple Watches, Google Home, and FitBit to identify behavioral or mental health changes.

Although officials insist the information would be gathered from people who volunteer it, some critics raised alarm about the use of products which have already come under scrutiny for violating users’ privacy, to gather health information.

“While mental health research is, in and of itself, a worthy and important endeavor, the prospect of a computer culling people’s smart home data in the pursuit of red-flagging potential mass shooters feels uniquely dystopian, particularly given America’s long, dark history of domestic surveillance,” wrote Rafi Schwartz at Splinter News.

Also chilling, the new federal agency, HARPA, will use AI/ML, smart home appliances, Apple watches, etc. to gather data. Nobody objects to this kind of intimate surveillance or false positives, right?

— RE Sieber (@re_sieber) August 23, 2019

All “voluntary”. Will this be like the time Facebook users “volunteered” their data to SCL and Cambridge Analytica? Will the consent be buried deep in TOS fine print, incomprehensible to anyone who is not an attorney? /9

— Emily A. (@emzorbit) August 22, 2019

Others noted that the details which have been released about HARPA thus far are vague—leading to questions about what the government plans to do after it determines that someone exhibits signs that they could be dangerous to the community.

What happens if someone is identified as having a mental status change suggestive of a violent act? Will they be involuntarily committed if they refuse treatment? What if they refuse medication? Will they be medicated through court orders? Based on predictive modeling alone? /10

— Emily A. (@emzorbit) August 22, 2019

Finally: Again, the results “will be public,” but what will they do with them?? What happens to people found to be “prone to violence” according to these researchers? #HARPA

— Kaitlin Ugolik Phillips (@kaitlinugolik) August 22, 2019

“This agency isn’t being proposed to stem gun violence. It never was,” wrote Orem. “Tons of research suggests that gun violence does not correlate or stem from mental illness. This is about policing disability and cognitive difference.”

“And remember: because diagnoses of mental illness have been used to police people of color…women, and queer people, policing disability results in policing broader networks of minority groups,” she added.

Join the call to divest from the state and the banking system which protect and subsidize mass surveillance and the War on Guns by switching to cryptocurrency today. Take the pledge to exchange at least $1 per day into your choice of altcoin and #DivestWallStreet

The Administration Rushed on a Sweeping Immigration Policy. We Found Substantive, Sloppy Mistakes.

Statue of Liberty, Immigration
By  Dara Lind and Yeganeh Torbati

This month, the Trump White House unveiled a new policy it had aggressively pushed through the regulatory process that makes it much harder for low-income immigrants, especially those who had used public benefits, to come to or remain in the United States.

The proposal — known as the “public charge” rule, since it creates a complicated test to determine whether an immigrant is “likely to be a public charge” — has the potential to dramatically restrict who’s allowed to settle in the country. And many people who work with immigrants, including social service providers and local and state governments, are worried that it will scare them away from using benefits they and their families need to thrive.

To soften the blow, the rule contains a few exceptions — groups of immigrants who are allowed to use public benefits without jeopardizing their future immigration status. But the rule is so sloppily written that it ended up treating immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens more harshly than immigrants married to noncitizens.

Active-duty service members who are immigrant noncitizens are allowed to use benefits without having it weigh against them as a “public charge” in the future. So are the family members of active-duty immigrant service members. But immigrants who are the spouses or children of active-duty service members who are U.S. citizens are not included in the exception, meaning their use of benefits while their spouses were on active duty could jeopardize their future in the U.S.

“It’s sloppy drafting. They’re trying to get the regulation out sooner than is probably practical,” said Charles Wheeler, an immigration attorney at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that developed and is implementing the rule, declined to comment because of pending litigation against the regulation. (Three lawsuits have been filed challenging the policy: one by a coalition of 13 states and filed in Washington state, one by San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California, and one by a coalition of nonprofit groups in California.) A White House spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

The regulation’s full text, detailed in 217 pages of three-column text in the Federal Register, contradicts its own implementing language regarding how the new rule will apply to military families. The government estimates it will take 16 to 20 hours just to read the regulation. And the form that’s supposed to implement the rule doesn’t distinguish between families of service members who are citizens and service members who are not citizens — although the form’s instructions do.

“There are so many unknowns at the moment with how this regulation is going to be interpreted and applied for immigrant family members,” Wheeler said. “And certainly that complexity is going to discourage people from even applying for green cards and for benefits.”

The public-charge regulation has been a top priority for the Trump White House, especially senior policy adviser Stephen Miller. For over a year, the White House has been pressuring USCIS to move more quickly to get it out the door.

But the rule’s confusing treatment of military families demonstrates sloppy work. It has created inconsistencies between the rule’s technical text and the forms under development to implement it.

The confusion over military families is one reason many social service providers, local and state governments, and lawyers are concerned that the rule’s impact will be much broader than its intended targets. With so much complexity and uncertainty about who will be treated differently under the new rule and how, they say it’s inevitable that immigrants who aren’t supposed to be targeted under the rule will be scared away from using public benefits to which they’re legally entitled.

Under the new rule, which will go into effect in October barring an injunction in one of the lawsuits, people applying for permanent-resident status are subject to a complicated test of whether they’re likely to become a public charge based on their income, education level, credit scores and other factors. Past use of public benefits counts as a “heavily weighted negative factor” against an immigrant — one that it would be hard for an applicant to overcome.

At one point, the preamble to the regulation says that “active duty servicemembers, including those in the Ready Reserve, and their spouses and children” are exempt from their use of public benefits being counted against them, implying that the exemption applies to all military families. In fact, it does not.

Deepening the confusion, USCIS has a form for applicants that doesn’t reflect the two standards mentioned in the rule. It asks immigrants applying for permanent residence to note, if appropriate, whether they are “the spouse or the child of an individual who is enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, or is in active duty or in the Ready Reserve Component of the U.S. Armed Forces.” It does not ask about the citizenship status of the military service member.

So spouses and children of U.S. citizen servicemembers would check “yes” on the question, even though the actual text of the regulation includes no exemption for them.

Immigration lawyers and benefits experts contacted by ProPublica could cite no reason why the regulation would treat immigrants married to U.S. citizens more harshly than immigrants married to noncitizens, and they concluded that the double standard might have been unintentional. Asked why spouses of U.S. citizens might be excluded, Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, speculated, “They didn’t think of it?”

“Clearly it’s so complicated that nobody understands it right now,” said Margaret Stock, an immigration lawyer with many military clients. “They’re going to make mistakes. There’s going to be massive amounts of confusion.”

Doug Rand, a former White House official who worked on immigration issues in President Barack Obama’s administration, summed up the contradictory messages around the active-duty exemption: “This is chaos.”

The treatment of military families is especially odd because the Department of Defense (unlike other arms of the federal government, like the Department of Veterans Affairs) took an active role to minimize the rule’s impact on military families. In the Federal Register preamble, USCIS wrote that the DOD worried that the new regulation “may give rise to concerns about servicemembers’ immigration status or the immigration status of servicemembers’ spouses and children … which would reduce troop readiness and interfere significantly with U.S. armed forces recruitment efforts.” Those concerns would appear to apply equally to immigrants married to citizens, and those married to noncitizens.

A DOD spokeswoman confirmed to ProPublica that the agency was consulted on the regulation, but she declined to comment about the exclusion of spouses and children of U.S. citizens from the active-duty exemption.

It’s not clear what exactly the impact of the double standard would be. In general, the immigrants who are targeted by the public-charge regulation are already legally ineligible for most public benefits. While military service members and their families are exempt from some of these restrictions — like the mandatory five-year waiting period before using any public benefits — military spouses who are unauthorized immigrants, for example, are still legally ineligible to receive most benefits.

The concern raised by immigration lawyers and advocates, however, is that the public charge rule will scare immigrants who aren’t targeted (such as those who already have green cards) out of trying to get benefits to which they are legally entitled, and deter immigrants who are targeted from using benefits that aren’t covered in the rule.

The regulation says, for example, that benefits obtained for children won’t count against their parents. So theoretically, an unauthorized immigrant who is raising a U.S. citizen child alone while their active-duty spouse is deployed can still apply for health insurance and food stamps for the child without damaging their future prospects for a green card. But it’s not at all clear whether military families themselves will get that message — especially because the regulation contradicts itself about their treatment.

The public-charge regulation has been in development for much of President Donald Trump’s tenure, with drafts being circulated and published by the press in February 2018. While the Pentagon fought for exemptions to the policy for active-duty military and their families throughout 2018, the VA several times declined to do the same for veterans, according to emails obtained by ProPublica under a Freedom of Information Act request.

The public comment period for the regulation began in September 2018 and ended in early December.

Over that time, the draft regulation received an unprecedented 266,000 public comments, which the government was legally obligated to read and respond to, in addition to finalizing the text of the regulation itself.

However, the Trump administration, led by Miller, was eager to finalize the regulation as quickly as possible and pressed agencies to complete it. Miller even criticized USCIS director Francis Cissna over his perceived slowness in developing and finalizing the public charge regulation.

“The timeline on public charge is unacceptable,” Miller wrote to Cissna in June 2018, in an email reported by Politico this month. “This is time we don’t have. I don’t care what you need to do to finish it on time.”

In March 2019, after the comment period ended, Miller yelled at Cissna during a meeting to finalize the rule more quickly, according to an April report from The New York Times. “You ought to be working on this regulation all day every day,” the Times quotes Miller as saying. “It should be the first thought you have when you wake up. And it should be the last thought you have before you go to bed. And sometimes you shouldn’t go to bed.”

As White House officials scrambled to complete the regulation’s initial draft version last year, they made clear to federal agencies that the decision to propose the drastic change to how immigration law is enforced had already been made. Agencies were discouraged from arguing against the central thrust of the policy, according to the emails obtained by ProPublica.

“Please do not worry about non-substantive line edits,” a White House official, whose name is redacted, wrote in bold type, in July 2018 and again in September. “Please recognize, also, that the decision of whether to propose expanding the definition of public charge, broadly, has been made at a very high level and will not be changing.”

Join the call to divest from the state and the banking system which protect and fund migrant detention and deportation by switching to cryptocurrency today. Take the pledge to exchange at least $1 per day into your choice of altcoin and #DivestfromICE by helping to #DivestWallStreet